Evidence Synthesis International (ESI): Position Statement

This paper is the initial Position Statement of Evidence Synthesis International, a new partnership of organizations that produce, support and use evidence synthesis around the world. The paper (i) argues for the importance of synthesis as a research exercise to clarify what is known from research evidence to inform policy, practice and personal decision making; (ii) discusses core issues for research synthesis such as the role of research evidence in decision making, the role of perspectives, participation and democracy in research and synthesis as a core component of evidence ecosystems; (iii) argues for 9 core principles for ESI on the nature and role of research synthesis; and (iv) lists the 5 main goals of ESI as a coordinating partnership for promoting and enabling the production and use of research synthesis.

Multi-atmosphere picosecond CO2 amplifier optically pumped at 4.3 μm

The possibility of the amplification of picosecond 10 μm pulses to gigawatt powers in an optically pumped 20 atmosphere CO₂ laser is shown using numerical simulations. Multi-millijoule 4.3 μm pulses generated by a tunable Fe:ZnSe laser are considered for pumping.

Living systematic review: 1. Introduction-the why, what, when, and how

Systematic reviews are difficult to keep up to date, but failure to do so leads to a decay in review currency, accuracy, and utility. We are developing a novel approach to systematic review updating termed "Living systematic review" (LSR): systematic reviews that are continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. LSRs may be particularly important in fields where research evidence is emerging rapidly, current evidence is uncertain, and new research may change policy or practice decisions. We hypothesize that a continual approach to updating will achieve greater currency and validity, and increase the benefits to end users, with feasible resource requirements over time.

Producing Cochrane systematic reviews-a qualitative study of current approaches and opportunities for innovation and improvement

BACKGROUND

Producing high-quality, relevant systematic reviews and keeping them up to date is challenging. Cochrane is a leading provider of systematic reviews in health. For Cochrane to continue to contribute to improvements in heath, Cochrane Reviews must be rigorous, reliable and up to date. We aimed to explore existing models of Cochrane Review production and emerging opportunities to improve the efficiency and sustainability of these processes.

METHODS

To inform discussions about how to best achieve this, we conducted 26 interviews and an online survey with 106 respondents.

RESULTS

Respondents highlighted the importance and challenge of creating reliable, timely systematic reviews. They described the challenges and opportunities presented by current production models, and they shared what they are doing to improve review production. They particularly highlighted significant challenges with increasing complexity of review methods; difficulty keeping authors on board and on track; and the length of time required to complete the process. Strong themes emerged about the roles of authors and Review Groups, the central actors in the review production process. The results suggest that improvements to Cochrane's systematic review production models could come from improving clarity of roles and expectations, ensuring continuity and consistency of input, enabling active management of the review process, centralising some review production steps; breaking reviews into smaller "chunks", and improving approaches to building capacity of and sharing information between authors and Review Groups. Respondents noted the important role new technologies have to play in enabling these improvements.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study will inform the development of new Cochrane Review production models and may provide valuable data for other systematic review producers as they consider how best to produce rigorous, reliable, up-to-date reviews.

Addressing resistance to antibiotics in systematic reviews of antibiotic interventions

Antibiotics are among the most important interventions in healthcare. Resistance of bacteria to antibiotics threatens the effectiveness of treatment. Systematic reviews of antibiotic treatments often do not address resistance to antibiotics even when data are available in the original studies. This omission creates a skewed view, which emphasizes short-term efficacy and ignores the long-term consequences to the patient and other people. We offer a framework for addressing antibiotic resistance in systematic reviews. We suggest that the data on background resistance in the original trials should be reported and taken into account when interpreting results. Data on emergence of resistance (whether in the body reservoirs or in the bacteria causing infection) are important outcomes. Emergence of resistance should be taken into account when interpreting the evidence on antibiotic treatment in randomized controlled trials or systematic reviews.

Improving GRADE evidence tables part 3: detailed guidance for explanatory footnotes supports creating and understanding GRADE certainty in the evidence judgments

BACKGROUND

The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) is widely used and reliable and accurate for assessing the certainty in the body of health evidence. The GRADE working group has provided detailed guidance for assessing the certainty in the body of evidence in systematic reviews and health technology assessments (HTAs) and how to grade the strength of health recommendations. However, there is limited advice regarding how to maximize transparency of these judgments, in particular through explanatory footnotes or explanations in Summary of Findings tables and Evidence Profiles (GRADE evidence tables).

METHODS

We conducted this study to define the essential attributes of useful explanations and to develop specific guidance for explanations associated with GRADE evidence tables. We used a sample of explanations according to their complexity, type of judgment involved, and appropriateness from a database of published GRADE evidence tables in Cochrane reviews and World Health Organization guidelines. We used an iterative process and group consensus to determine the attributes and develop guidance.

RESULTS

Explanations in GRADE evidence tables should be concise, informative, relevant, easy to understand, and accurate. We provide general and domain-specific guidance to assist authors with achieving these desirable attributes in their explanations associated with GRADE evidence tables.

CONCLUSIONS

Adhering to the general and GRADE domain-specific guidance should improve the quality of explanations associated with GRADE evidence tables, assist authors of systematic reviews, HTA reports, or guidelines with information that they can use in other parts of their evidence synthesis. This guidance will also support editorial evaluation of evidence syntheses using GRADE and provide a minimum quality standard of judgments across tables.

Advancing the field of health systems research synthesis

Those planning, managing and working in health systems worldwide routinely need to make decisions regarding strategies to improve health care and promote equity. Systematic reviews of different kinds can be of great help to these decision-makers, providing actionable evidence at every step in the decision-making process. Although there is growing recognition of the importance of systematic reviews to inform both policy decisions and produce guidance for health systems, a number of important methodological and evidence uptake challenges remain and better coordination of existing initiatives is needed. The Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, housed within the World Health Organization, convened an Advisory Group on Health Systems Research (HSR) Synthesis to bring together different stakeholders interested in HSR synthesis and its use in decision-making processes. We describe the rationale of the Advisory Group and the six areas of its work and reflects on its role in advancing the field of HSR synthesis. We argue in favour of greater cross-institutional collaborations, as well as capacity strengthening in low- and middle-income countries, to advance the science and practice of health systems research synthesis. We advocate for the integration of quasi-experimental study designs in reviews of effectiveness of health systems intervention and reforms. The Advisory Group also recommends adopting priority-setting approaches for HSR synthesis and increasing the use of findings from systematic reviews in health policy and decision-making.

Consensus on the Need for a Hierarchical List of Patient-reported Pain Outcomes for Metaanalyses of Knee Osteoarthritis Trials: An OMERACT Objective

Objective.

Although protocol registration for systematic reviews is still not mandatory, reviewers should be strongly encouraged to register the protocol to identify the methodological approach, including all outcomes of interest. This will minimize the likelihood of biased decisions in reviews, such as selective outcome reporting. A group of international experts convened to address issues regarding the need to develop hierarchical lists of outcome measurement instruments for a particular outcome for metaanalyses.

Methods.

Multiple outcome measurement instruments exist to measure the same outcome. Metaanalysis of knee osteoarthritis (OA) trials, and the assessment of pain as an outcome, was used as an exemplar to assess how Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT), the Cochrane Collaboration, and other international initiatives might contribute in this area. The meeting began with formal presentations of background topics, empirical evidence from the literature, and a brief introduction to 2 existing hierarchical lists of pain outcome measurement instruments recommended for metaanalyses of knee OA trials.

Results.

After discussions, most participants agreed that there is a need to develop a methodology for generation of hierarchical lists of outcome measurement instruments to guide metaanalyses. Tools that could be used to steer development of such a prioritized list are the COSMIN checklist (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments) and the OMERACT Filter 2.0.

Conclusion.

We list meta-epidemiological research agenda items that address the frequency of reported outcomes in trials, as well as methodologies to assess the best measurement properties (i.e., truth, discrimination, and feasibility).

Dialogue on Developing Consensus on Measurement and Presentation of Patient-important Outcomes, Using Pain Outcomes as an Exemplar, in Systematic Reviews: A Preconference Meeting at OMERACT 12

Prior to the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 12 meeting in Budapest, Hungary, a workshop was held bringing together individuals from a number of international outcome measure organizations to assess how best to further develop consensus on how pain is conceptualized and measured in trials of musculoskeletal conditions, and how the trials should be reported in systematic reviews.

The role of The Cochrane Collaboration in support of the WHO Nutrition Guidelines

This article describes the background and contribution of The Cochrane Collaboration to the WHO Nutrition Guidelines program. Systematic reviews, augmented by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology for assessing the quality of a body of evidence, form the evidence basis for WHO guidelines. Our shared experience of working together has highlighted a number of issues that are challenging, such as decisions made about selecting appropriate questions for evidence synthesis and the nature of study types that are included, in particular the decision on whether or not to extend a search beyond randomized studies. Although the skills and experience required for evidence synthesis are different from those needed to determine recommendations for policy and practice, our experience suggests that some engagement between the two groups is mutually beneficial. Finally, our experience highlights the recognition that evidence of effectiveness is essential but by no means sufficient to guide decisions on recommendations. Programmatic and implementation considerations are important to guide decision making and the evidence basis for this may be limited; therefore, it is essential that groups involved in delivering interventions to populations are also engaged in the guidelines process.